"You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior (nonsense!). You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion (double nonsense!)"

A little inaccurate, but okay.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 9/4/2013 8:21:31 PM, 000ike wrote:"You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior (nonsense!). You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion (double nonsense!)"

At 9/4/2013 8:21:31 PM, 000ike wrote:"You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior (nonsense!). You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion (double nonsense!)"

A little inaccurate, but okay.

What order?

Maid Marion, Little John, The Sheriff, Robin Hood.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

I had like a 180 on this topic. I took the test a few times, I think I once did something like Maid Marion, John, Robin Hood, Sheriff but now I gotta go with Sheriff, Robin Hood, Marion, and Little John. The test hates me.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Sheriff - Scummy offer, but he didn't force anything.Robin Hood - Overreacted, maybe a little insensitive but he has cause for it.Marion - Doesn't seem to realize that her actions have consequences. She whored herself out; I think her behavior here is unacceptable given her previous exclusivity with Robin Hood.John - I'm utterly contemptuous of him. Come on, he expresses his undying love for her just as Robin Hood dumps her and she's upset so he effectively gets her off the rebound. All this time he's loved her and never been honest about it. What makes his act so despicable is how calculated it seemed to have been. At least Marion was put in a hard spot; Little John backstabs his partner in crime and feeds on the vulnerability.

At 9/4/2013 8:32:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:I had like a 180 on this topic. I took the test a few times, I think I once did something like Maid Marion, John, Robin Hood, Sheriff but now I gotta go with Sheriff, Robin Hood, Marion, and Little John. The test hates me.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Sheriff - Scummy offer, but he didn't force anything.Robin Hood - Overreacted, maybe a little insensitive but he has cause for it.Marion - Doesn't seem to realize that her actions have consequences. She whored herself out; I think her behavior here is unacceptable given her previous exclusivity with Robin Hood.John - I'm utterly contemptuous of him. Come on, he expresses his undying love for her just as Robin Hood dumps her and she's upset so he effectively gets her off the rebound. All this time he's loved her and never been honest about it. What makes his act so despicable is how calculated it seemed to have been. At least Marion was put in a hard spot; Little John backstabs his partner in crime and feeds on the vulnerability.

I'm not gonna lie, OMG, I highly disapprove of your positioning of Marion. Promiscuity is a minor offense at worst, almost morally insignificant at best. I mean, what's your objection? That she was unfaithful? What's worse unfaithfulness or violence? And then on top of that, she was doing it to help him. She's the only one in that story that actually did something out of concern for someone else, with John coming in second in that respect.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 9/4/2013 8:32:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:I had like a 180 on this topic. I took the test a few times, I think I once did something like Maid Marion, John, Robin Hood, Sheriff but now I gotta go with Sheriff, Robin Hood, Marion, and Little John. The test hates me.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Sheriff - Scummy offer, but he didn't force anything.Robin Hood - Overreacted, maybe a little insensitive but he has cause for it.Marion - Doesn't seem to realize that her actions have consequences. She whored herself out; I think her behavior here is unacceptable given her previous exclusivity with Robin Hood.John - I'm utterly contemptuous of him. Come on, he expresses his undying love for her just as Robin Hood dumps her and she's upset so he effectively gets her off the rebound. All this time he's loved her and never been honest about it. What makes his act so despicable is how calculated it seemed to have been. At least Marion was put in a hard spot; Little John backstabs his partner in crime and feeds on the vulnerability.

I'm not gonna lie, OMG, I highly disapprove of your positioning of Marion. Promiscuity is a minor offense at worst, almost morally insignificant at best. I mean, what's your objection? That she was unfaithful? What's worse unfaithfulness or violence? And then on top of that, she was doing it to help him. She's the only one in that story that actually did something out of concern for someone else, with John coming in second in that respect.

There's no violence in this story, so why is the question relevant? I'm not saying promiscuity is equivalent to violence, but for two people in a relationship it's not acceptable for one to go around sleeping with one's enemy and then go on to claim that it was done for the sake of Robin Hood. That's completely ridiculous.

Yeah, I understand the point that her intentions might have been good, but just makes her unbelievably naive. I mean, come on, you spend a night with your boyfriend's enemy without even consulting him. Have you ever been in a relationship, ike? How about in love? That stuff can really burn. Promiscuity isn't offensive to you because you probably haven't really ever felt it's effects.

At 9/4/2013 9:00:27 PM, Maikuru wrote:This has got to be the best possible interpretation.

"We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Men: Do we detect a sense of chivalry and idealism under the sophistication?"

Order: Marion > Little John > Robin Hood > The Sheriff

So you'd be okay with tulle, acting under the knowledge that you got arrested for some vague charge, screwed the a$$hole who arrested you in exchange for freeing you without telling you?

Funnily enough, she and I discussed a very similar situation months ago (we talk between 6-12 hours a day, so we go through tons of topics). Would I be okay with her doing what she needed to in order to "save" me? Yes.

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

At 9/4/2013 8:32:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:I had like a 180 on this topic. I took the test a few times, I think I once did something like Maid Marion, John, Robin Hood, Sheriff but now I gotta go with Sheriff, Robin Hood, Marion, and Little John. The test hates me.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Sheriff - Scummy offer, but he didn't force anything.Robin Hood - Overreacted, maybe a little insensitive but he has cause for it.Marion - Doesn't seem to realize that her actions have consequences. She whored herself out; I think her behavior here is unacceptable given her previous exclusivity with Robin Hood.John - I'm utterly contemptuous of him. Come on, he expresses his undying love for her just as Robin Hood dumps her and she's upset so he effectively gets her off the rebound. All this time he's loved her and never been honest about it. What makes his act so despicable is how calculated it seemed to have been. At least Marion was put in a hard spot; Little John backstabs his partner in crime and feeds on the vulnerability.

I'm not gonna lie, OMG, I highly disapprove of your positioning of Marion. Promiscuity is a minor offense at worst, almost morally insignificant at best. I mean, what's your objection? That she was unfaithful? What's worse unfaithfulness or violence? And then on top of that, she was doing it to help him. She's the only one in that story that actually did something out of concern for someone else, with John coming in second in that respect.

There's no violence in this story, so why is the question relevant? I'm not saying promiscuity is equivalent to violence, but for two people in a relationship it's not acceptable for one to go around sleeping with one's enemy and then go on to claim that it was done for the sake of Robin Hood. That's completely ridiculous.

Yeah, I understand the point that her intentions might have been good, but just makes her unbelievably naive. I mean, come on, you spend a night with your boyfriend's enemy without even consulting him. Have you ever been in a relationship, ike? How about in love? That stuff can really burn. Promiscuity isn't offensive to you because you probably haven't really ever felt it's effects.

I doubt my inexperience is the only reason why I'm having difficulty understanding your opinions here. This sounds really messed up. She did it to HELP him and ONLY to help him, and then he abused her..... and you think she was immoral and he wasn't.

You're messed up.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 9/4/2013 8:21:31 PM, 000ike wrote:"You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior (nonsense!). You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion (double nonsense!)"

A little inaccurate, but okay.

What order?

Maid Marion, Little John, The Sheriff, Robin Hood.

Same

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I originally picked the same order as Ike, but I then realized that the sheriff should actually go last, which caused me to get maikuru's result.

1. Marion - she commits what appears to be a selfless act. What she did shows that she genuinely cares for and has devotion to Robin.

2. Little John - OMG, you're probably right that this was calculated, but at least he had the smarts to know that her selling herself out to save Robin isn't some terrible terrible thing.

3. Robin - his girl just freed him from prison at her own expense, and his reaction is to abuse, humiliate, and leave her. You've got to be kidding me.

4. Sheriff - he was willing to let a felon walk out of prison and back onto the streets just to he could have a quickie. His actions are not only dishonest but also put the public safety at risk. Considering this was a maximum-security prison, I'm assuming that whatever Robin did was pretty damn bad.

At 9/4/2013 9:37:08 PM, BlackVoid wrote:I originally picked the same order as Ike, but I then realized that the sheriff should actually go last, which caused me to get maikuru's result.

1. Marion - she commits what appears to be a selfless act. What she did shows that she genuinely cares for and has devotion to Robin.

2. Little John - OMG, you're probably right that this was calculated, but at least he had the smarts to know that her selling herself out to save Robin isn't some terrible terrible thing.

3. Robin - his girl just freed him from prison at her own expense, and his reaction is to abuse, humiliate, and leave her. You've got to be kidding me.

4. Sheriff - he was willing to let a felon walk out of prison and back onto the streets just to he could have a quickie. His actions are not only dishonest but also put the public safety at risk. Considering this was a maximum-security prison, I'm assuming that whatever Robin did was pretty damn bad.

At 9/4/2013 9:37:08 PM, BlackVoid wrote:I originally picked the same order as Ike, but I then realized that the sheriff should actually go last, which caused me to get maikuru's result.

1. Marion - she commits what appears to be a selfless act. What she did shows that she genuinely cares for and has devotion to Robin.

2. Little John - OMG, you're probably right that this was calculated, but at least he had the smarts to know that her selling herself out to save Robin isn't some terrible terrible thing.

3. Robin - his girl just freed him from prison at her own expense, and his reaction is to abuse, humiliate, and leave her. You've got to be kidding me.

4. Sheriff - he was willing to let a felon walk out of prison and back onto the streets just to he could have a quickie. His actions are not only dishonest but also put the public safety at risk. Considering this was a maximum-security prison, I'm assuming that whatever Robin did was pretty damn bad.

This was an interesting test by the way.

Yeah actually I swapped the order of Robin and the Sheriff after my first go. At first I put Robin last because he was such an assshole, but there Sheriff was the worse one

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 9/4/2013 9:37:08 PM, BlackVoid wrote:I originally picked the same order as Ike, but I then realized that the sheriff should actually go last, which caused me to get maikuru's result.

1. Marion - she commits what appears to be a selfless act. What she did shows that she genuinely cares for and has devotion to Robin.

2. Little John - OMG, you're probably right that this was calculated, but at least he had the smarts to know that her selling herself out to save Robin isn't some terrible terrible thing.

3. Robin - his girl just freed him from prison at her own expense, and his reaction is to abuse, humiliate, and leave her. You've got to be kidding me.

4. Sheriff - he was willing to let a felon walk out of prison and back onto the streets just to he could have a quickie. His actions are not only dishonest but also put the public safety at risk. Considering this was a maximum-security prison, I'm assuming that whatever Robin did was pretty damn bad.

This was an interesting test by the way.

Yeah actually I swapped the order of Robin and the Sheriff after my first go. At first I put Robin last because he was such an assshole, but there Sheriff was the worse one

Lol, so not only did you get the same oder, but you also went through the same shift as me. You must be my long-lost twin. Or my soul mate. One of the two.

At 9/4/2013 8:32:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:I had like a 180 on this topic. I took the test a few times, I think I once did something like Maid Marion, John, Robin Hood, Sheriff but now I gotta go with Sheriff, Robin Hood, Marion, and Little John. The test hates me.

Men: We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.

Sheriff - Scummy offer, but he didn't force anything.Robin Hood - Overreacted, maybe a little insensitive but he has cause for it.Marion - Doesn't seem to realize that her actions have consequences. She whored herself out; I think her behavior here is unacceptable given her previous exclusivity with Robin Hood.John - I'm utterly contemptuous of him. Come on, he expresses his undying love for her just as Robin Hood dumps her and she's upset so he effectively gets her off the rebound. All this time he's loved her and never been honest about it. What makes his act so despicable is how calculated it seemed to have been. At least Marion was put in a hard spot; Little John backstabs his partner in crime and feeds on the vulnerability.

I'm not gonna lie, OMG, I highly disapprove of your positioning of Marion. Promiscuity is a minor offense at worst, almost morally insignificant at best. I mean, what's your objection? That she was unfaithful? What's worse unfaithfulness or violence? And then on top of that, she was doing it to help him. She's the only one in that story that actually did something out of concern for someone else, with John coming in second in that respect.

There's no violence in this story, so why is the question relevant? I'm not saying promiscuity is equivalent to violence, but for two people in a relationship it's not acceptable for one to go around sleeping with one's enemy and then go on to claim that it was done for the sake of Robin Hood. That's completely ridiculous.

Yeah, I understand the point that her intentions might have been good, but just makes her unbelievably naive. I mean, come on, you spend a night with your boyfriend's enemy without even consulting him. Have you ever been in a relationship, ike? How about in love? That stuff can really burn. Promiscuity isn't offensive to you because you probably haven't really ever felt it's effects.

I doubt my inexperience is the only reason why I'm having difficulty understanding your opinions here. This sounds really messed up. She did it to HELP him and ONLY to help him, and then he abused her..... and you think she was immoral and he wasn't.

You're messed up.

It actually probably is. No man really cares about promiscuous women in the abstract...hell, they don't mind if anything, but in this case it is experience that gives the idea its real breath. As someone who seems more empirically oriented, I'm surprised you're not weighing experience as important here. Anyway, relationships are grounded in trust. Maid Marion simply fell short, even while I acknowledge that she was in a tough spot.

Yeah, she professed that she did it to help him. You can't actually peek inside of her mind. When you reach a certain age it's crucial to realize that your actions have consequences and, no, simply having "good intentions" isn't going to cut it in every circumstance.

It's a little funny how you can make these types of judgments about relationships when presumably you haven't really had that kind of bond...or am I wrong here? If so, please tell me.

Disregarding the actual test here, what I found interesting was how the author had a very clear idea what were right answers and what were wrong answers. Any answer critical of Marion resulted in an accusation of sexism (if male) or wanting to be a man or something similar if female.You are a good person if you don't like the sheriff and Robin and bad person if you don't like Little John or Marion.In the light of what was posted in the thread (a fairly decent defence of a non-orthodox answer by OMG), it makes the test seem very small minded.

At 9/5/2013 9:55:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:Disregarding the actual test here, what I found interesting was how the author had a very clear idea what were right answers and what were wrong answers. Any answer critical of Marion resulted in an accusation of sexism (if male) or wanting to be a man or something similar if female.You are a good person if you don't like the sheriff and Robin and bad person if you don't like Little John or Marion.In the light of what was posted in the thread (a fairly decent defence of a non-orthodox answer by OMG), it makes the test seem very small minded.

This was partially why I posted it in the first place. I remember taking the test around a year ago when I guess maybe I was a little more liberal in my gender attitudes and prone to giving women the benefit of the doubt, but in my final response of Robin Hood, Sheriff, Marion, and John I was called a "ruthless authoritarian" by the test results. I'm glad you noticed this feature.

It actually probably is. No man really cares about promiscuous women in the abstract...hell, they don't mind if anything, but in this case it is experience that gives the idea its real breath. As someone who seems more empirically oriented, I'm surprised you're not weighing experience as important here. Anyway, relationships are grounded in trust. Maid Marion simply fell short, even while I acknowledge that she was in a tough spot.

Yeah, she professed that she did it to help him. You can't actually peek inside of her mind. When you reach a certain age it's crucial to realize that your actions have consequences and, no, simply having "good intentions" isn't going to cut it in every circumstance.

It's a little funny how you can make these types of judgments about relationships when presumably you haven't really had that kind of bond...or am I wrong here? If so, please tell me.

No, you're not wrong. But your evaluation is uncommon and even very different from those of the other posters here, so I know for certain that it doesn't exist simply by virtue of hurt feelings I don't understand. I'm of the opinion that nothing trumps violence. No matter what someone does or says, the individual that initiates violence is pretty much always wrong. So I don't have much sympathy for those that would abuse their wives for cheating on them (is this such a strange position?).

And what you're telling me is that your evaluation of what is right and wrong is purely based on how you feel about it. So if you dislike something strongly enough, that suffices for you to call it evil. This justifies everything I've said about how morality is completely logically illegitimate - and just a confession of emotions seeking objectification in order to be taken seriously.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

It actually probably is. No man really cares about promiscuous women in the abstract...hell, they don't mind if anything, but in this case it is experience that gives the idea its real breath. As someone who seems more empirically oriented, I'm surprised you're not weighing experience as important here. Anyway, relationships are grounded in trust. Maid Marion simply fell short, even while I acknowledge that she was in a tough spot.

Yeah, she professed that she did it to help him. You can't actually peek inside of her mind. When you reach a certain age it's crucial to realize that your actions have consequences and, no, simply having "good intentions" isn't going to cut it in every circumstance.

It's a little funny how you can make these types of judgments about relationships when presumably you haven't really had that kind of bond...or am I wrong here? If so, please tell me.

No, you're not wrong. But your evaluation is uncommon and even very different from those of the other posters here, so I know for certain that it doesn't exist simply by virtue of hurt feelings I don't understand. I'm of the opinion that nothing trumps violence. No matter what someone does or says, the individual that initiates violence is pretty much always wrong. So I don't have much sympathy for those that would abuse their wives for cheating on them (is this such a strange position?).

And what you're telling me is that your evaluation of what is right and wrong is purely based on how you feel about it. So if you dislike something strongly enough, that suffices for you to call it evil. This justifies everything I've said about how morality is completely logically illegitimate - and just a confession of emotions seeking objectification in order to be taken seriously.

"the individual that initiates violence is pretty much always wrong" where is this coming from? Aren't you a moral skeptic? Robin Hood never physically abused MM, so the entire conversation about violence - while an interesting discussion in its own right - is irrelevant to our purposes.

It's actually a little funny that you're arguing with me given this statement from another thread:

Moral claims are neither true nor false

Why would you argue against my moral claims if my claims don't express propositions (i.e. a statement that is either true or false?) It would be like my saying "Boo Yankees!" or "Sausage...yuck!" and you going off on some tangent about how I'm wrong. You need to get your thoughts organized, sir.

It actually probably is. No man really cares about promiscuous women in the abstract...hell, they don't mind if anything, but in this case it is experience that gives the idea its real breath. As someone who seems more empirically oriented, I'm surprised you're not weighing experience as important here. Anyway, relationships are grounded in trust. Maid Marion simply fell short, even while I acknowledge that she was in a tough spot.

Yeah, she professed that she did it to help him. You can't actually peek inside of her mind. When you reach a certain age it's crucial to realize that your actions have consequences and, no, simply having "good intentions" isn't going to cut it in every circumstance.

It's a little funny how you can make these types of judgments about relationships when presumably you haven't really had that kind of bond...or am I wrong here? If so, please tell me.

No, you're not wrong. But your evaluation is uncommon and even very different from those of the other posters here, so I know for certain that it doesn't exist simply by virtue of hurt feelings I don't understand. I'm of the opinion that nothing trumps violence. No matter what someone does or says, the individual that initiates violence is pretty much always wrong. So I don't have much sympathy for those that would abuse their wives for cheating on them (is this such a strange position?).

And what you're telling me is that your evaluation of what is right and wrong is purely based on how you feel about it. So if you dislike something strongly enough, that suffices for you to call it evil. This justifies everything I've said about how morality is completely logically illegitimate - and just a confession of emotions seeking objectification in order to be taken seriously.

"the individual that initiates violence is pretty much always wrong" where is this coming from? Aren't you a moral skeptic? Robin Hood never physically abused MM, so the entire conversation about violence - while an interesting discussion in its own right - is irrelevant to our purposes.

It's actually a little funny that you're arguing with me given this statement from another thread:

Moral claims are neither true nor false

Why would you argue against my moral claims if my claims don't express propositions (i.e. a statement that is either true or false?) It would be like my saying "Boo Yankees!" or "Sausage...yuck!" and you going off on some tangent about how I'm wrong. You need to get your thoughts organized, sir.

fair enough.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

It also doesn't say anything about exclusivity and the test said to put aside any preconceived notions. So we can drop the dishonest bit right off the bat. In terms of morality, sleeping with someone is not in and of itself wrong, while abusing someone is.

At 9/5/2013 2:01:11 PM, tulle wrote:In terms of morality, sleeping with someone is not in and of itself wrong, while abusing someone is.

A problem with the test is that it isn't clear what the "abuse" is. Is it physical? Or is it just the calling her a slut and more verbal behaviour along those lines? Because if it is the latter, he hasn't really done much wrong. Sure he sucks at personal relationships and might be being short sighted, but that isn't an unjustified reaction.

At 9/5/2013 2:01:11 PM, tulle wrote:It also doesn't say anything about exclusivity and the test said to put aside any preconceived notions. So we can drop the dishonest bit right off the bat. In terms of morality, sleeping with someone is not in and of itself wrong, while abusing someone is.

I'm really surpised you would rank Robin Hood above Marion.

I go off the mythical/historical background of Robin Hood. In the legends, MM is his love interest so there's clearly something going on there. It obviously wouldn't make sense for RH to get angry at MM if they were friends or there was nothing really personal between them; it just makes much more sense to presume that they were lovers.

Speaking of things "in and of themselves" isn't particularly helpful because these events take place within a context. I think we can both agree that abuse, or at least a kind of verbal spouting off is acceptable at some points. Anger can be warranted.